Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc., Instagram LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Skky, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`TITLE: MEDIA DELIVERY PLATFORM
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,892,465
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 2
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 2
`E.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 2
`Fee Payment - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................................. 3
`II.
`III. Requirements for Inter Partes Review under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 and
`42.108 ............................................................................................................. 3
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 3
`B.
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................ 3
`IV. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) .................................... 4
`A.
`“Non-Optimized Digital Media File” (Claims 1, 9) ............................ 4
`B.
`“Content-Rich Digital Media File” (Claim 9) ...................................... 6
`C.
`“Cellular Data Channel” (Claim 9) ...................................................... 6
`Claims 1, 2, and 7-11 Are Unpatentable ........................................................ 7
`A.
`Considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and Non-Redundancy ........ 8
`B.
`Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art .................... 12
`1.
`Overview of Rolf (Ex. 1003) ................................................... 12
`2.
`Overview of Frantz (Ex. 1014) ................................................ 14
`3.
`Overview of O’Hara (Ex. 1061), Tagg (Ex. 1060), Pinard
`(Ex. 1070), OFDM, and Wi-Fi................................................. 14
`Overview of Gilbert (Ex. 1066) ............................................... 17
`Overview of Brumitt (Ex. 1025) .............................................. 17
`Overview of Yukie (Ex. 1013) ................................................. 18
`Overview of Van de Pol (Ex. 1063) ........................................ 18
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`V.
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐i‐
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`b.
`
`C. Ground 1 ............................................................................................. 19
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 19
`a.
`“a server operably coupled to a database, the
`database including a plurality of digital media
`files, said server including a server digital signal
`processor and memory” (Claim 1[a]) ............................ 19
`“wherein the server digital signal processor is
`configured to, receive a non-optimized digital
`media file, optionally store the non-optimized
`digital media file in the database, optimize the
`non-optimized digital media file according to an
`optimization scheme, store the optimized digital
`media file in the database, receive a request for the
`digital media file, and cause a transmission of the
`requested optimized digital media file by
`synchronized orthogonal frequency-division
`multiplex modulation to a wireless electronic
`device” (Claim 1[b]) ...................................................... 24
`Dependent Claim 8: “The system of claim 1, wherein the
`request for the digital media file is received from the
`wireless electronic device.” ..................................................... 44
`D. Ground 2 (Claim 2) ............................................................................ 44
`E.
`Ground 3 (Claim 7) ............................................................................ 54
`F.
`Ground 4 (Claims 9-11) ..................................................................... 63
`1.
`Claim 9 (Similar to Claim 1) ................................................... 63
`2.
`Dependent Claim 10: “The system of claim 9, wherein
`the server and the wireless telephone are further operably
`coupled by a WI-FI data channel.” .......................................... 69
`Dependent Claim 11: “The system of claim 10, wherein
`the WI-FI data channel utilizes orthogonal frequency-
`division multiplex (OFDM) modulation.” ............................... 70
`VI. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 70
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`‐ii‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Description of Document
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465 to John Mikkelsen et al., entitled “Media
`Delivery Platform”
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,342 to Devon A. Rolf, entitled “System and
`Mobile Cellular Telephone Device for Playing Recorded Music”
`Excerpts from Ben Forta et al., WAP Development with WML and
`WMLScript, Sams Publishing (September 2000)
`Alan Gatherer et al., DSP-Based Architectures for Mobile
`Communications: Past, Present and Future, IEEE Communications
`Magazine (January 2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,726,978 to Carl Magnus Frodigh et al., entitled
`“Adaptive Channel Allocation in a Frequency Division Multiplexed
`System”
`EP 1039683 A1 to Laroia et al., entitled “Frequency hopping
`multiple access with multicarrier signals”
`U.S. Patent 5,815,488 to Williams et al., entitled “Multiple User
`Access Method Using OFDM”
`Cheong Yui Wong et al., A Real-time Sub-carrier Allocation Scheme
`for Multiple Access Downlink OFDM Transmission, IEEE (1999)
`1010 Wonjong Rhee et al., Increase in Capacity of Multiuser OFDM
`System Using Dynamic Subchannel Allocation, IEEE (2000)
`EP 1033894 A2 to Masatoshi Saito, entitled “Portable telephone
`terminal apparatus for receiving data and data receiving method”
`U.S. Patent No. 6,423,892 to Muralidharan Ramaswamy, entitled
`“Method, Wireless MP3 Player and System for Downloading MP3
`Files from the Internet”
`U.S. Patent No. 6,956,833 to Satoru Yukie et al., entitled “Method,
`System, and Devices for Wireless Data Storage on a Server and
`Data Retrieval”
`Gene Frantz, Digital Signal Processor Trends, IEEE Micro (2000)
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`‐iii‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Description of Document
`E. Lawrey, Multiuser OFDM, Fifth International Symposium on
`Signal Processing and its Applications (Aug. 1999)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,113 to Timothy Schmidl et al., entitled
`“Timing and Frequency Synchronization of OFDM Signals”
`U.S. Patent No. 6,711,221 to Maxim Belotserkovsky, entitled
`“Sampling Offset Correction in an Orthogonal Frequency Division
`Multiplexing System”
`Richard Van Nee et al., OFDM for Wireless Multimedia
`Communications (2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,488,445 to Robert W. Chang entitled “Orthogonal
`Frequency Multiplex Data Transmission System”
`Robert W. Chang, Synthesis of Band-limited Orthogonal Signals for
`Multi-Channel Data Transmission, Bell Labs Technical Journal, no.
`45, pp. 1775-1796 (Dec. 1966)
`5th International OFDM Workshop 2000
`6th International OFDM Workshop 2001
`17th International OFDM Workshop 2012
`Rainer Grünheid et al., Adaptive Modulation and Multiple Access
`for the OFDM Transmission Technique, Wireless Personal
`Communications (May 2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,931,292 to Marcia R. Brumitt et al., entitled
`“Noise Reduction Method and Apparatus”
`IEEE Std 802.11a-1999, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
`Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: High-
`speed Physical Layer in the 5 GHz Band
`U.S. Patent No. 6,125,124 to Jari Junell, entitled “Synchronization
`and Sampling Frequency in an Apparatus Receiving OFDM
`Modulated Transmissions”
`U.S. Patent No. 7,133,352 to Zion Hadad, entitled “Bi-Directional
`Communication Channel”
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐iv‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`1029
`
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`Description of Document
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,810 to Brian Kroeger et al., entitled “Digital
`Audio Broadcasting Method Using Puncturable Convolutional
`Code”
`Ahmad R.S. Bahai, Multi-Carrier Digital Communications (1999)
`Leonard J. Cimini, Jr., Analysis and Simulation of a Digital Mobile
`Channel Using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing, IEEE
`Trans. Commun., Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 665-675 (July, 1985)
`Giovanni Santella, Performance Evaluation of Broadband
`Microcellular Mobile Radio in M-QAM OFDM Systems, IEEE
`(1996)
`H. Rohling et al., Performance of an OFDM-TDMA Mobile
`Communication System, IEEE (1996)
`Antti Toskala et al., Cellular OFDM/CDMA Downlink Performance
`in the Link and System Levels, IEEE (1997)
`Fredrik Tufvesson et al., Pilot Assisted Channel Estimation for
`OFDM in Mobile Cellular Systems, IEEE (1997)
`Branimir Stantchev et al., An Integrated FSK-signaling Scheme for
`OFDM-based Advanced Cellular Radio, IEEE (1997)
`J. C-I Chuang, An OFDM-based System with Dynamic Packet
`Assignment and Interference Suppression for Advanced Cellular
`Internet Service, IEEE (1998)
`Branimir Stantchev et al., Burst Synchronization for OFDM-based
`Cellular Systems with Separate Signaling Channel, IEEE (1998)
`Kevin L. Baum, A Synchronous Coherent OFDM Air Interface
`Concept for High Data Rate Cellular Systems, IEEE (1998)
`Li Ping, A Combined OFDM-CsDMA Approach to Cellular Mobile
`Communications, IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. 47,
`No. 7, pp. 979-982 (July 1999)
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐v‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`Description of Document
`Justin Chuang et al., High-Speed Wireless Data Access Based on
`Combining EDGE with Wideband OFDM, IEEE Communications
`Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 11, pp. 92-98 (Nov. 1999)
`Justin Chuang et al., Beyond 3G: Wideband Wireless Data Access
`Based on OFDM and Dynamic Packet Assignment, IEEE
`Communications Magazine (July 2000)
`Chi-Hsiao Yih et al., Adaptive Modulation, Power Allocation and
`Control for OFDM Wireless Networks, IEEE (2000)
`Fumihide Kojima et al., Adaptive Sub-carriers Control Scheme for
`OFDM Cellular Systems, IEEE (2000)
`Chi-Hsiao Yih et al., Power Allocation and Control for Coded
`OFDM Wireless Networks, IEEE (2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,650 to Esa Malkamaki, entitled “Combined
`Modulation—and Multiple Access Method for Radio Signals”
`EP 0786890 A2 to Mitsuhiro Suzuki, entitled “Resource Allocation
`in a Multi-User, Multicarrier Mobile Radio System”
`1048 WO 1997030531 A1 to Roger Larsson, entitled “Improvements in
`or Relating to OFDM Systems”
`U.S. Patent No. 6,188,717 to Stefan Kaiser et al., entitled “Method
`of Simultaneous Radio Transmission of Digital Data Between a
`Plurality of Subscriber Stations and a Base Station”
`U.S. Patent No. 6,711,120 to Rajiv Laroia et al., entitled
`“Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing Based Spread
`Spectrum Multiple Access”
`U.S. Patent No. 6,553,019 to Rajiv Laroia et al., entitled
`“Communications System Employing Orthogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing Based Spread Spectrum Multiple Access”
`U.S. Patent No 6,922,388 to Rajiv Laroia et al., entitled “Signal
`Construction, Detection and Estimation For Uplink Timing
`Synchronization and Access Control in a Multi-Access Wireless
`Communication System”
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`‐vi‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Ex. No.
`1053
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Description of Document
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2001/0021182 to Takashi Wakutsu,
`entitled “Transmitter Apparatus and Receiver Apparatus and Base
`Station Making Use of Orthogonal Frequency Division
`Multiplexing and Spectrum Spreading”
`Laurie Ann Toupin, Flash-OFDM ‘Hops’ Wireless Data
`Communications into the Main Stream
`Excerpts from Webster’s New Dictionary of the English Language
`(2001)
`Excerpts from The Dictionary of Multimedia Terms & Acronyms
`(1997)
`Excerpts from Encarta World English Dictionary (1999)
`Excerpts from Modern Dictionary of Electronics (1999)
`Excerpts from The Oxford American Desk Dictionary (1998)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,996,698 to James P. Tagg, entitled “Cooperative
`Network for Mobile Internet Access”
`Bob O’Hara et al., 802.11 Handbook: A Designer’s Companion,
`IEEE Press (1999)
`Declaration of Al Petrick
`EP 0957489 A1 to Teun Van de Pol, entitled “Portable Device and
`Method to Record, Edit and Playback Digital Audio”
`Bryan E. Braswell, Modeling Data Rate Agility in the IEEE 802.11a
`Wireless Local Area Networking Protocol (Mar. 2001)
`1065 W.B. Snow, Audible Frequency Ranges of Music, Speech and Noise
`Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (July, 1931)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,560,577 to Jay Gilbert et al., entitled “Process for
`Encoding Audio From an Analog Medium into a Compressed
`Digital Format Using Attribute Information and Silence Detection”
`Excerpts from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1996)
`Excerpts from McGraw-Hill Illustrated Telecom Dictionary (2000)
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`1058
`1059
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1066
`
`1067
`1068
`
`‐vii‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Ex. No.
`1069
`1070
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Description of Document
`Excerpts from Scot Hacker, MP3 The Definitive Guide (2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,815,811 to Patrick Pinard et al., entitled
`“Preemptive Roaming in a Cellular Local Area Wireless Network”
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/167,179 to Devon Rolf,
`filed November 23, 1999, entitled “System, Method, and Device for
`Playing Recorded Music on a Wireless Communications Device”
`Redline Comparison of U.S. Patent No. 7,065,342 and U.S.
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/167,179
`Information Disclosure Statement by Applicant, Application No.
`14/302,065 (June 23, 2014)
`Reserve
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh
`Edition (2000)
`Louis D. Fielder, Pre- and Post-emphasis Techniques as Applied to
`Audio Recording Systems, Journal of Audio Engineering Society,
`Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 649-58 (September 1985)
`Excerpts from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 16th Edition (2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 341,214 to C. A. Bell et al., entitled “Recording and
`Reproducing Speech and Other Sounds” (1886)
`1079 WECA Applauds IEEE Ratification of High-Speed Additions to
`Wireless LAN Standard, Businesswire.com (1999)
`Excerpts from John G. Proakis et al., Digital Signal Processing:
`Principles, Algorithms, and Applications (1996)
`Sohil N. Parekh, Evolution of Wireless Home Networks: The Role of
`Policy-Makers in a Standards-based Market (2001)
`Keith Biesecker, The Promise of Broadband Wireless, IT Pro, pp.
`31-39, IEEE (2000)
`Excerpts from Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition
`(1997)
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`1074
`1075
`
`1076
`
`1077
`1078
`
`1080
`
`1081
`
`1082
`
`1083
`
`‐viii‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`1084
`1085
`
`Description of Document
`Sep. 18, 2014 Transmittal Letter
`Sep. 30, 2014 Notice of Allowability
`
`‐ix‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`Facebook, Inc. and Instagram LLC (“Petitioners”) respectfully submit this
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 2, and 7-11 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,892,465 (Ex. 1001) (“’465 patent”).
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`The Petitioners, Facebook, Inc. and Instagram LLC, are the real parties-in-
`
`interest to this IPR petition. Instagram LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`Facebook, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’465 patent is the subject of the following litigation: Skky, LLC v.
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al., No. 16:CV-00094 (D. Minn.), filed on January 15, 2016. As
`
`of the date of this Petition, no claim construction proceedings have occurred.
`
`The Petitioners filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) for the ’465
`
`patent on October 14, 2016. See Facebook, Inc., et al. v. Skky, LLC, IPR2017-
`
`00097. No institution decision has issued with respect to that petition. As
`
`explained in Part V.A below, the present Petition does not implicate 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d) and is not redundant of the one filed in IPR2017-00097.
`
`Additionally, an inter partes review (IPR) was instituted for U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,548,875, the parent to the ’465 patent. See Playboy Enters., Inc. et al. v. Skky,
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐1‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`Inc., IPR2014-01236. On January 29, 2016, the PTAB issued a Final Decision
`
`finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`D.
`This Petition is being served by Federal Express to the attorney of record for
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342)
`amace@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5808
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`Service Information
`
`the ’465 patent, PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A., 4800 IDS Center, 80 South
`
`8th St., Minneapolis, MN 55402-2100. The Petitioner may be served at the
`
`address provided immediately above for lead counsel, and consents to electronic
`
`service by e-mail at the addresses above.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`E.
`Filed concurrently in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐2‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`II.
`FEE PAYMENT - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`This Petition requests review of seven (7) claims. A payment of $23,000 is
`
`submitted herewith, based on a $9,000 request fee and a post-institution fee of
`
`$14,000. This Petition meets the fee requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1).
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104
`AND 42.108
`
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`The Petitioners certify that the ’465 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioners are not barred or otherwise estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review on the grounds identified herein.1
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`The Petitioners respectfully request that the Board initiate inter partes
`
`review of claims 1, 2, and 7-11 on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Petitioners were served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’465 patent
`
`on January 15, 2016. January 15, 2017 falls on a Sunday, and January 16, 2017 is
`
`Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (a Federal holiday within the District of Columbia).
`
`This Petition therefore satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because it was filed on or
`
`before January 17, 2017. 35 U.S.C. § 21(b); see also 37 CFR 1.7(a).
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐3‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`Ground Claims
`1
`1, 8
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Rolf in view of O’Hara, Tagg, Frantz,
`and Gilbert under § 103(a)
`Unpatentable over Rolf in view of O’Hara, Tagg, Frantz,
`Gilbert , and Brumitt under § 103(a)
`Unpatentable over Rolf in view of O’Hara, Tagg, Frantz,
`Gilbert, and Yukie under § 103(a)
`Unpatentable over Rolf in view of O’Hara, Tagg, Pinard,
`Frantz and Gilbert, under § 103(a)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`2
`
`7
`
`9-11
`
`Part V below explains why the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`
`these grounds. Submitted with this Petition is the Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`(Exhibit 1002) (“Lavian”), a technical expert with decades of relevant technical
`
`experience. (Lavian, Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-10, Ex. A.)
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`
`“Non-Optimized Digital Media File” (Claims 1, 9)
`
`A.
`Claims 1 and 9 recite the phrase, “non-optimized digital media file.” The
`
`term “non-optimized” (or any variant) does not appear in the written description of
`
`the ’465 patent. The patent does describe a technique for “audio parametric
`
`optimization and compression” (Figure 15 (1500)), which performs a number of
`
`steps on an input data file. (’465, 24:4-15.) The patent describes these
`
`optimizations as part of a compression process: “The server audio data
`
`optimization and compression element 1205, utilizes a music compression
`
`algorithm outlined in FIG. 15, which converts common music files into
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐4‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`compressed files in order to reduce the audio clip size for minimizing its download
`
`time, while maintaining predetermined audio quality.” (’465, 23:64-24:2.)2 The
`
`specification describes a number of sub-steps of the optimization and compression
`
`process as part of a larger file compression process. (’465, 24:6-12 (“The method
`
`1500 of compressing the files comprises the steps of a) conversion 1502; b)
`
`amplitude normalization 1504; c) sample rate conversion 1506; d) pre-emphasis
`
`filtering 1508; e) amplitude normalization 1510; and f) performance of MPEG
`
`audio layer 3 (MP3) compression with the selected parameters 1512. The
`
`compressed files are then transferred to the server database.”).) In other words, an
`
`optimized digital media file is a file that has been compressed. (Lavian, ¶¶51-52.)
`
`The written description does not describe the format or composition of the
`
`original input file to which the compression algorithm is applied. Nevertheless,
`
`because the specification describes “optimization” as compression, the negatively
`
`phrased “non-optimized digital media file” would be understood under its broadest
`
`reasonable construction as a “digital media file that has not undergone
`
`compression or other processing.”
`
`
`
` 2
`
` All emphasis present in quoted language has been added, unless otherwise noted.
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐5‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`B.
`“Content-Rich Digital Media File” (Claim 9)
`The term “content-rich media file” (or any variant of “content-rich”) does
`
`not appear in the written description. Nevertheless, the patent repeatedly refers to
`
`the media files as “sound and/or image” files. (’465, e.g., 3:11 (“sound and/or
`
`image files”), 3:16 (“sound and/or image clips”), passim.) Based on the
`
`specification, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe
`
`“content-rich media file” as a “sound and/or image file.”
`
`“Cellular Data Channel” (Claim 9)
`
`C.
`Claim 9 recites a method including a step including transmission “over a
`
`cellular data channel by orthogonal frequency-division multiplex (OFDM)
`
`modulation.” The grounds in this Petition rely on a wireless networking
`
`technology known as IEEE 802.11, commercially known as “Wi-Fi.” As
`
`explained below, this technology can be used to implement a “cellular data
`
`channel” under its broadest reasonable construction.
`
`The term “cellular” is often colloquially understood as referring to large
`
`scale commercial cellular telephone providers such as AT&T, but the term has a
`
`more precise and technical definition to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`(Lavian, ¶¶81, 21-23.) In this context, a “cellular data channel” refers to a data
`
`channel in a network in which wireless communications are provided through a
`
`series of “cells,” each cell providing network access for a particular geographic
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐6‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`area. (Exs. 1055-59, 1067-68 (contemporary dictionary definitions of “cellular”);
`
`Lavian, ¶¶81-82.) The term “cellular data channel” is not limited to a particular
`
`type of wireless networking technology. (Lavian, ¶82.)
`
`The claims of the ’465 patent, in fact, expressly encompass use of Wi-Fi for
`
`cellular data channels that use OFDM. Claim 9 recites transmission between a
`
`server and a wireless telephone “over a cellular data channel by orthogonal
`
`frequency-division multiplex (OFDM) modulation,” claim 10 recites “[t]he system
`
`of claim 9, wherein the server and the wireless telephone are further operably
`
`coupled by a WI-FI data channel,” and claim 11 recites “[t]he system of claim 10,
`
`wherein the WI-FI data channel utilizes orthogonal frequency-division multiplex
`
`(OFDM) modulation.” This is consistent with a broadest reasonable construction
`
`of “cellular data channel” that would encompass Wi-Fi technology.
`
`Accordingly, “cellular data channel” under
`
`its broadest reasonable
`
`construction should be understood as a “data channel in a network in which
`
`wireless communications are provided through a series of ‘cells,’ each cell
`
`providing network access for a particular geographic area.”
`V. CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 7-11 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 7-11 are unpatentable on the four grounds stated above.
`
`This Petition will first provide an overview of each reference and brief description
`
`of its relevance to the claims of the ’465 patent.
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐7‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`A. Considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and Non-Redundancy
`As noted above, the Petitioners previously filed IPR2017-00097 against the
`
`’465 patent. Dependent claims 2, 7, 10, and 11 are not challenged in IPR2017-
`
`00097. With respect to claims 1, 8, and 9, the present Petition does not present
`
`“the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments [that] previously were
`
`presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C § 325(d). The present Petition and IPR2017-
`
`00097 do cite some of the same prior art references, but differ with respect to the
`
`claim
`
`limitation of
`
`transmitting data by “orthogonal frequency-division
`
`multiplex [(OFDM)] modulation.” The Petitioners in IPR2017-00097 cited
`
`Frodigh (Ex. 1006) for this limitation, which discloses a technique for adding
`
`OFDM to an existing cellular network.
`
`This Petition takes a different approach by relying on prior art describing
`
`industry-standard IEEE 802.11a short-range wireless networking technology. This
`
`Petition establishes that prior art IEEE 802.11a technology available by the late
`
`1990s specified use of OFDM, and that such technology could have been
`
`incorporated into cell phones. Because the claimed OFDM wireless connection
`
`described in this Petition could have been built based on the IEEE 802.11a
`
`standard that had already been accepted by the industry, it does not require OFDM
`
`modulation to be added to any existing cellular network. To support these new
`
`grounds, this Petition cites to (a) O’Hara (Ex. 1061) to show that IEEE 802.11a
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐8‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`wireless networking transmits digital information to devices using OFDM, (b)
`
`Tagg (Ex. 1060) to disclose incorporation of IEEE 802.11 wireless networking
`
`functionality into a cell phone, and (c) Pinard (Ex. 1070) to disclose creation of a
`
`“cellular” data channel based on a series of IEEE 802.11 wireless access points.
`
`These references disclose the OFDM limitations using a technology that is
`
`different from the Frodigh reference in IPR2017-00097.
`
`Despite diligent search efforts, the Petitioners did not locate Tagg and Pinard
`
`until after they filed the Petition in IPR2017-00097. Those references bridged the
`
`gap left open by O’Hara, i.e. demonstrating that the OFDM techniques in IEEE
`
`802.11a could be incorporated into a cell phone operating over a “cellular data
`
`channel,” as claimed.
`
`Because the prior art cited in this Petition challenges the OFDM requirement
`
`in a fundamentally different way than IPR2017-00097, the grounds in the two
`
`petitions are also not redundant. For example, the mapping of Frodigh in
`
`IPR2017-00097 has some similarities to the mapping provided in the Playboy IPR
`
`on the parent ’875 patent (IPR2014-01236), and the Petitioners anticipate that
`
`some of the same arguments made in that proceeding will be repeated in IPR2017-
`
`00097. For example, the patent owner in IPR2014-01236 argued that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have adapted Rolf (the primary reference in that
`
`IPR and here) to transmit data using OFDM because (a) OFDM was not commonly
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐9‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`used in cellular networks as of June 2001, (b) various alleged technological
`
`difficulties would have made it too difficult and complex to adapt OFDM for use
`
`with a cellular network, and (c) cellular phone standards at the time did not use
`
`OFDM. (See Patent Owner’s Response, IPR2014-01236, Paper 21, at pp.42-44.)
`
`Although the Board properly rejected these arguments in IPR2014-01236,
`
`the Petitioners anticipate that the patent owner will attempt to resurrect them,
`
`perhaps in a reformulated fashion, in an attempt to avoid unpatentability of the
`
`challenged claims. To be clear, the Petitioners believe that the patent owner’s
`
`arguments about the supposed difficulty in adapting OFDM for use with existing
`
`cellular networks are without merit. But the Petitioners cannot predict how the
`
`patent owner might reformulate such an argument, or how the patent owner may
`
`attempt to apply such a reformulated argument to Frodigh.
`
`This Petition avoids these issues by presenting a combination that does not
`
`involve incorporation of OFDM modulation into any existing cellular network.
`
`The patent owner’s arguments, although properly rejected in IPR2014-01236,
`
`would have no applicability here.
`
`This Petition does not represent any kind of attempt to use a second petition
`
`as a “roadmap” or a “second bite at the apple.” The patent owner has not yet filed
`
`its Preliminary Response in IPR2017-00097, and an institution decision is months
`
`away. This Petition was filed to present new and markedly different grounds that
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐10‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,892,465
`
`were not, and could not have been, presented when the Petitioners filed IPR2017-
`
`00097. In light of the substantial differences between the prior art in IPR2017-
`
`00097 and the prior art presented here on the OFDM limitation, this Petition does
`
`not implicate the considerations set forth in § 325(d) or raise redundant grounds.
`
`Finally, the grounds presented here were not presented to the PTO during the
`
`original prosecution of the ’465 patent. The primary reference, Rolf, was cited
`
`during prosecution in passing along with hundreds of other references. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1073, p.24; Ex. 1084 at 4.) However, the Examiner never cited Rolf in any
`
`Office Action or otherwise discussed it substantively.3 Rolf was also the primary
`
`reference in Playboy Enters., Inc. et al. v. Skky, Inc., IPR2014-01236, in which the
`
`Board found all claims of the ’875 patent, a parent to the ’465 patent, unpatentable.
`
`The grounds raised herein are also substantially different from the prior art
`
`the Examiner specifically discussed. For example, in the Notice of Allowability,
`
`the Examiner stated that Fritsch (U.S. 6,247,130) does not disclose the details
`
`necessary for wireless delivery of optimized digital media to a wireless electronic
`
`device by OFDM. (Ex. 1085 at pp.5-7.) No such statement applies to the grounds
`
`
`
` 3
`
` The Yukie reference that this Petition relies upon solely for dependent claim 7
`
`was also cited in a lengthy Information Disclosure Statement but never
`
`substantively discussed. (Ex. 1073 at 23.)
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐11‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Revie